Lansing Judge Dismisses Medical Marijuana Case

[CaveatLector]

i meant follow king/kolanek.

 

transfers are legal according to the law.

anyone who says elsewise is trying to protect thier business model.

What business model would that be?

[t-pain]

my dumb opinion...

business models list:

caregivers = want exclusive rights to patients' money. no dispensaries/transfers = no competition = higher prices

cops = want to arrest marijuana users , because its easy and less violent than other criminals

judges = kickbacks from drug abuse treatment centers

prosecutors = kickbacks from treatment centers, prisons, alcohol distributors

 

go look at who donated to the 'elect bill schuette' fund. tell me i'm wrong.

Edited November 28, 2012 by t-pain

[cristinew]

Last i knew dispensaries charge a lot more than caregivers,,

 

 

transfers are legal according to the law.??

 

Could you clear this up for me?? where is it at in the law ? and who do you transfer to?

Edited November 28, 2012 by cristinew

[shishka]

Cav, you have mentioned in the past about intent to commit a crime. After reading something like this in the local paper it would seem when presented to a jury, this quote from a judge would prove that one thought they were in the right when transfering meds, and had no intent to commit a crime rather, they were following a judges ruling.

 

"Members of the jury, I assure you my client was doing his absolute best to follow the law".

[cristinew]

they will come back and say Ignorance of the law is not a defense,

 

and an Attorney will Never introduce district judges opinions as case law,,

Edited November 28, 2012 by cristinew

[t-pain]

Could you clear this up for me?? where is it at in the law ? and who do you transfer to?

 

(e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

for who to transfer to? well, thats currently in the supreme court, but you knew that.

Edited November 28, 2012 by t-pain

[Highlander]

my dumb opinion...

business models list:

caregivers = want exclusive rights to patients' money. no dispensaries/transfers = no competition = higher prices

cops = want to arrest marijuana users , because its easy and less violent than other criminals

judges = kickbacks from drug abuse treatment centers

prosecutors = kickbacks from treatment centers, prisons, alcohol distributors

 

go look at who donated to the 'elect bill schuette' fund. tell me i'm wrong.

 

I don't know any CGs who think that they can make a lot of money off five patients. I don't know any patients who can spend a lot of money on meds either. So how does the exclusivity of the CG-5 patients model benefit a CG?

 

Every CG I have met would love to have a place to dump overages. Can you explain how NOT being able to dump overages is good for CGs?

Edited November 28, 2012 by Highlander

[cristinew]

so section 6 d should be Ignored?? Most PAs do not ignore 6 d

 

(d) The department shall issue a registry identification card to the primary caregiver, if any, who is named in a qualifying patient's approved application; provided that each qualifying patient can have no more than 1 primary caregiver, and a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.

 

and a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.

 

now how many patients does 4 e say i can assest with use???? is does not say,,,

Edited November 28, 2012 by cristinew

[t-pain]

you said right there that cg transfers to their registered patients are legal.

'transfers are legal' does not imply 'all transfers are legal'.

'transfers are legal' does not imply 'no transfers are legal'.

 

as we are on a medical forum , and discussing a medical law,

i figured 'medical use' was to apply to things.

but i guess you want me to say 'medical use transfers are legal' ?

 

6d has nothing to do with patients, who are protected under 4a and 3e.

Edited November 28, 2012 by t-pain

[cristinew]

transfers are legal according to the law........... bad advice many patients and caregivers facing felony charges all across the state with this kind of advice ///

[Chauncy Gardner]

so section 6 d should be Ignored?? Most PAs do not ignore 6 d

 

(d) The department shall issue a registry identification card to the primary caregiver, if any, who is named in a qualifying patient's approved application; provided that each qualifying patient can have no more than 1 primary caregiver, and a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.

 

and a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.

 

now how many patients does 4 e say i can assest with use???? is does not say,,,

 

Doesn't the model used by some dispensaries involve caregivers transferring meds to other caregivers so that a patient may still be supplied by his primary caregiver? The patient's primary caregiver had the meds transferred to him before he transfers the meds to his patient. Why wouldn't this be legal?

[Chauncy Gardner]

transfers are legal according to the law........... bad advice many patients and caregivers facing felony charges all across the state with this kind of advice ///

 

 

(e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

Transfer is legal according to this section of the law. "Transfer" is part of the "medical use" of marihuana.

[OG Fire Beaster]

so section 6 d should be Ignored?? Most PAs do not ignore 6 d

 

(d) The department shall issue a registry identification card to the primary caregiver, if any, who is named in a qualifying patient's approved application; provided that each qualifying patient can have no more than 1 primary caregiver, and a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.

 

and a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.

 

now how many patients does 4 e say i can assest with use???? is does not say,,,

 

Section 6 is a list of administrative rules. They do not define what medical use is or what it allows. It defines what the Administrators of the program are required to do.

[cristinew]

You can transfer to the 5 patients you have ,,,, the law is the law,,, 4 e does not say you can sell to anyone patient,

[cristinew]

Medical use is already defined ,,, now show me that 4 e that i can sell to any patient,,

[cristinew]

go ahead and ignore section 6 d and see where it will get you,,

[CaveatLector]

Cav, you have mentioned in the past about intent to commit a crime. After reading something like this in the local paper it would seem when presented to a jury, this quote from a judge would prove that one thought they were in the right when transfering meds, and had no intent to commit a crime rather, they were following a judges ruling.

 

"Members of the jury, I assure you my client was doing his absolute best to follow the law".

Problem with that is that a judge's ruling must be read in context with specific facts. You cannot just read a judge's ruling, devoid of facts, and act on that ruling. Secondly, a judge cannot give legal advice. A judge's ruling is not legal advice. Thirdly, a district court judge's ruling does not have precedential value. In other words, you cannot simply argue that dist. ct. judge jane doe ruled x in case y, and therefore I can engage in z conduct. Show me a coa or sup ct opinion and then your argument holds water.

[CaveatLector]

(e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

Transfer is legal according to this section of the law. "Transfer" is part of the "medical use" of marihuana.

Transfer isn't independent and cannot be parsed in the act. A more correct statement would be, "transfer, by certain individuals and under certain circumstances, is legal according to this section of the law."

[cristinew]

a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana

 

 

Section 6 D Prosecutors all over the state are using this to arrest people,,,,,,, go for it cry 4 e all you want it will get you nothing but a felony charge ,

[Highlander]

(e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

Transfer is legal according to this section of the law. "Transfer" is part of the "medical use" of marihuana.

 

People like to believe that the Act says "All medical use is legal." It doesn't say that. Just because you can define something as "medical use" doesn't mean it is covered. The law protects "medical use in accordance with this act." You can't just read the definition of "medical use" and go from there. You have to read it in context with the protections.

 

For example, under "medical use" I can possess MJ. But when I look at the rest of the act, I see that there is a limitation on how much I can possess.

 

Think of it like this. If you possess 2 pounds of MJ for the purpose of alleviating your condition, there is no question that this fits within the definition of "medical use" but that doesn't mean it is protected.

[t-pain]

what cases ruled p2p illegal?

 

2 lbs would be protected under section8...

Edited November 28, 2012 by t-pain

[OG Fire Beaster]

I would not ignore any part of the law. I would take note that section 6 has nothing to do with patient/caregiver protections and rights though.

[Chauncy Gardner]

transfers are legal according to the law........... bad advice many patients and caregivers facing felony charges all across the state with this kind of advice ///

 

 

Now that the Supreme Court has ordered that everyone is entitled to use the medical defense, I am assuming that very few patients and caregivers across the state will be convicted of felonies. Even if a person is over in plant count or material, they are still entitled to mount a medical defense and explain themselves to a jury - just the way it was intended to be here in the good ol' US of A.

[CaveatLector]

what cases ruled p2p illegal?

 

2 lbs would be protected under section8...

That's like asking what cases rules murder illegal. Uh, none. They don't need to because the legislature made it illegal. Similarly, here, the legislature made possession of marijuana illegal.

 

Remember, the MMA grants immunity for committing a crime. Possession and transfer of marijuana is a crime. So the better question is what part of the MMA makes p2p legal. That's what we need to be able to point to in order to argue that p2p is legal.

[Chauncy Gardner]

People like to believe that the Act says "All medical use is legal." It doesn't say that. Just because you can define something as "medical use" doesn't mean it is covered. The law protects "medical use in accordance with this act." You can't just read the definition of "medical use" and go from there. You have to read it in context with the protections.

 

For example, under "medical use" I can possess MJ. But when I look at the rest of the act, I see that there is a limitation on how much I can possess.

 

Think of it like this. If you possess 2 pounds of MJ for the purpose of alleviating your condition, there is no question that this fits within the definition of "medical use" but that doesn't mean it is protected.

 

 

So, is this where a person gets to mount a medical defense in order to explain their need for 2 lbs. of marijuana?